Tags:

Text Size

-

+

reset

The biggest decision of the economic recovery will be made in the next six months, and President Obama will have almost nothing to do with it.
AP Photo

Already, the Fed is already showing some signs of restlessness. On Monday, the New York Fed tested its “reverse-repo” process -- one tool the Fed could use to use to pull the money out when the time comes. The test run was widely interpreted as a sign the Fed is getting ready to act – but when, nobody knows.

The Fed can also tap on the brakes at the first sign of inflation by raising interest rates, now near zero. The Fed has said it will keep the rock-bottom rates for an extended period, but it won’t be more specific when they could go up – a decision that is bound to be controversial when it comes.

Patrikis thinks the Fed will make a decision on withdrawing liquidity either during the second quarter of 2010, or after the November elections that year – but that it won’t make any dramatic moves in the run-up to Election Day.

Still, he said, it is too early to predict what the Fed might do. And Patrikis points out that Obama will have indirect input into the decision, because there are two vacancies on the Fed’s board now that Obama will fill in the coming months. The president will surely select board members whose economic judgment he trusts.

Between the two vacancies, a member who Obama appointed earlier this year and Bernanke himself, the president will likely have named four of the seven members of the Fed’s Board of Governors by the time they make the call.

But the Fed knows actions like that can have political consequences. “There are few politicians who like higher interest rates,” said one former Fed official. “And President Obama is a politician.” That said, the official continued, “I suspect they will be broadly on the same page.”

That’s because Obama, too, has a longer-term time frame in mind: 2012, when he will be running for reelection. It’s in Obama’s interest for the Fed to take inflation prevention measures now so that he doesn’t have to run a tricky reelection campaign in a high-inflation environment.

Tensions between Presidents and Fed chairmen are nothing new.

In the 1980s, Fed Chairman Paul Volcker declared war on inflation. His strategy: raising interest rates. Volcker jacked the Fed funds rate to 20 percent, which contributed to the deep early 1980s recession that caused howls of protest from the White House and incumbent Republicans on Capitol Hill. The Fed, grumbled then-Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker (R-Tenn.), should “get its boot off the neck of the economy.”

Nonetheless, Volcker’s strategy worked, and the Fed broke the back of the inflation cycle. Ironically, Volcker is a top economic adviser to Obama today.

In the 1990s, President George H.W. Bush blamed Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan for his election loss to Bill Clinton. Bush didn’t believe Greenspan was lowering interest rates fast enough to pull the nation out of a recession – which gave Clinton, with his famous “it’s the economy, stupid” campaign, an opening to trounce the elder Bush.

Mark Gertler, a professor of economics at New York University, says the lesson of history is that politicians should not interfere with the central bank. “If the Fed doesn’t act independently, the economy is endangered,” said Gertler. “It would be dangerous if the administration appeared to be interfering with the Fed.”

Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) doubts they’ll be any daylight between Obama and Bernanke – who Obama just reappointed over the summer at a time when Wall Street needed a signal that there would be continuity at the Fed.

He argues that Bernanke and Obama will have the same agenda in 2010: fixing the economy.

“I think they are very much in sync,” said Frank. Asked about potential divergence between the Fed and the White House, he said, “That reflects a journalist’s hope that there will be friction. Obama and Bernanke have both argued that at some point they’re going to unwind this.”

“I think they are very much in sync,” said Frank. Asked about potential divergence between the Fed and the White House, he said, “That reflects a journalist’s hope that there will be friction. Obama and Bernanke have both argued that at some point they’re going to unwind this.”

We are nowhere near the time to start fighting non-existent inflation. There is a lot of slack in the economy right now. Credit markets are better than they were a year ago but still weak. Any uptick in interest rates could push them back towards the abyss. What our economy continues to need is aggressive fiscal policy to make up for the loss of private-sector spending combined with expansionary monetary policy to keep interest rates low and encourage private sector investment. There will be plenty of time to head off inflation when we start seeing the signs. We saw what happened in 1937 when deficit hawks convinced FDR to balance the budget. The result was the 1938 recession as the economy was still trying to recover from the Great Depression. Let's not repeat this history:

By the spring of 1937, economic indicators had regained the production, profits, and wage levels of 1929, except for unemployment, which remained high, although it was considerably lower than the 25% unemployment rate seen in 1933. In June 1937 some of Roosevelt's advisors urged spending cuts to balance the budget. WPA rolls were drastically cut and PWA projects were slowed to a standstill.[3] The American economy took a sharp downturn in mid-1937, lasting for 13 months through most of 1938. Industrial production declined almost 30 per cent and production of durable goods fell even faster.

Unemployment jumped from 14.3% in 1937 to 19.0% in 1938, rising from 5 million to more than 12 million in early 1938.[4] Manufacturing output fell by 37% from the 1937 peak and was back to 1934 levels.[5] Producers reduced their expenditures on durable goods, and inventories declined, but personal income was only 15% lower than it had been at the peak in 1937. In most sectors, hourly earnings continued to rise throughout the recession, which partly compensated for the reduction in the number of hours worked. As unemployment rose, consumers' expenditures declined, leading to further cutbacks in production.

What our economy continues to need is aggressive fiscal policy to make up for the loss of private-sector spending combined with expansionary monetary policy to keep interest rates low and encourage private sector investment

Typical, Liberal, bigoted response. Curt, let's get you edumacated, you are 100% wrong because your ideology is blinding you. Google the Laffer curve, then get back to me.

I prefer actual numbers over theory. Here are the numbers, revenue went down under Reagan and Bush as a % of GDP which is the only way to compare year over year numbers and the deficits and debt went up. You've bought into a myth.

Nominal revenue always increases due to inflation and immigration. What matters is revenue as a % of GDP and it went down under Reagan and Bush. You need to take the next step in evaluating the numbers.